I’m trying to figure out
what the 45th President of the United States is trying to do with
his newfound powers. So far, I think it’s either a deliberate attempt to reduce
the size of the government, or just plain amateur handling of the most powerful
government in the world. Perhaps it is both.
The President campaigned
on reducing taxes for all, which I’m not sure isn’t a bad idea as long as we
don’t go into further debt. The Bush administration had to borrow money from
China to repay a surplus back to taxpayers. Mr. Trump immediately put a hiring
freeze into effect, which will slowly reduce the federal employment rosters as
people retire or find a place in the private sector. I can agree with that. But
his choices for cabinet have politicians on both sides of the aisle scratching
their heads and voicing strong concern about their qualifications, or lack thereof. But can you think
of a better way to downsize bureaucracy than to put people in charge of
government organizations they oppose? In some ways I agree with the idea of destroying
the education department. I’ve always viewed education as a state, not federal,
issue. Any school board member will tell you that complying with federal
regulations takes up a sizeable share of a school budget.
And of course, there are
other departments that seem to be going down this path. If there is one
bureaucracy that has been very ineffective, it is the EPA. Now the most obvious
thing is that the environment is a federal issue. And the EPA does do many good
things for the environment. But there are many, many things that are mired in
bureaucratic nonsense and should be state issues, especially polluted sites. A
good example can be found in the waters of the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn
in New York City. More than 100 years ago, oil was stored in the area and leaks
were ignored at that time. Now, the area is a major problem as toxic waste water has
invaded the ground water among other things. My former sister-in-law became
involved in this and if I am correct, she believes that the area has a high cancer
rate as a result.
But this area, as well as
hundreds of toxic areas throughout the country, has to involve local, county,
regional, state and federal government organizations. Millions, and probably
billions, of dollars are wasted on study after study. And the federal
government provides the funds to clean up these sites. The problem is the feds
don’t clean them all up. There’s not enough money in the budget. I wonder if it
became a matter for the states to fund, that we wouldn’t have a higher priority
for places like Greenpoint where hundreds of thousands are being affected?
I also wonder if we are
looking at an attempt to revive Jacksonian democracy,
which is a political movement toward greater democracy for the “common man.” Andrew Jackson's policies followed
the era of Jeffersonian democracy.
And much like today it was a movement to reduce the role of the Federal
Government. A major concept of this political idea was that Congressmen (no
women then) would serve one or two terms and then let another person serve. If
this was the case, I suspect we would have more of the best and the brightest
serving. But to paraphrase E. Y. “Yip” Harberg: Each Congressman has two ends –
a sitting end and a thinking end. And since his whole success depends on keeping
his seat, why bother friend?
Each Congressman has two ends – a sitting end and a thinking end. And since his whole success depends on keeping his seat, why bother friend?
We have term limits for our presidents for good
reason. But term limits for Congress would also have the impact of far less
political spending. Today, it’s not about serving. It’s about getting and
keeping power. And so I doubt that term limits are possible. Republicans have
struggled for many years to dominate all three branches of government and since
they will determine the makeup of the Supreme Court, I have no doubt they want
to keep that power. I am somewhat fearful about this since throughout my
lifetime both parties have generally shared power. How will they do so is something those who oppose them will remain a critical idea.
Now if we are going to downsize the federal
government, we’re probably going to ramp up state governments. I’m not sure
about this since the coastal states tend to be dominated by Democrats and the
rest dominated by Republicans. If states choose to refuse the responsibilities
a reduced federal government will foist on them. It could cause chaos.
Let’s look at the differences between the era of
Jackson and the 21st century. First of all, the United States had
settled little west of the Mississippi River, though that would soon change as
the result of Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory and the Lewis and
Clark expedition. But we weren’t a world power by any means. Immigrants were
more than welcome although discriminated against. Chinese immigrants built our
railroads in the west, but were subjected to much discrimination, including the
Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s after the railroads had been built. Of course
just about every group who came here faced problems. Catholics had little
influence outside of Maryland in colonial times, and it wasn’t until 1960 that
an Irish-American Catholic became president by a very close margin. My father’s German-American family faced
great discrimination during the world war eras. And the sins against
Japanese-Americans during the Second World War is a national disgrace.
Perhaps, our greatest shame has been our dealings
with Native Americans. An unforeseen part of this was the spreading of “white”
diseases such as measles and smallpox. It is estimated that 90 percent of the
Native American population died of these diseases. And the greed of whites
resulted in constant wars after broken treaty after broken treaty, including today.
But this is history. Today we are a world power,
but not the only one, as some will have you believe. The re-emergence of Russia
onto the world stage as well as the development of China as the world’s leading
economic power has recreated an economic cold war, which will be impacted by
Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies. Now don’t get me wrong. I think NAFTA
always has been a dumb idea as good American jobs went both north and south of
the border. Well-paying union jobs in manufacturing disappeared almost
overnight. Nearly all of our appliances and a growing number of our automobiles
are being made in Mexico and Canada has a major share of the auto parts
industry. Trains and subways are now built in Canada too. So yes, I actually
agree with the President on some things.
But this is history. Today we are a world power, but not the only one, as some will have you believe. The re-emergence of Russia onto the world stage as well as the development of China as the world’s leading economic power has recreated an economic cold war, which will be impacted by Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies.
But our level of political sophistication has gone
way beyond Andrew Jackson’s time. We have nukes, and so do Russia, China, North
Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and France. Iran will, no doubt, develop them
(if they haven’t already) and worst of all, terrorists are capable of creating “dirty”
bombs containing nuclear material that are just as able to make a city
unlivable as a nuke.
Our position in the world, as well as our domestic issues calls for a very
sophisticated presence. So can the Trump administration do this with
inexperienced “amateurs?”
Now although I do not personally approve of many of the
nominees that have been put forth, many are highly successful businesspersons
who, I suspect, will turn out to be fairly good administrators.
But the way the American people have traditionally been
informed is through a free press. The profile of the press has certainly
changed. Newspapers, then radio and television have been the way to
inform us. But this election campaign has seen the emergence
of many so-called Internet “news” sites that have done little but rile up
people with misleading and false articles without attribution. And frankly, I
have been very disappointed in the content of such institutional papers such as
the New York Times and Washington Post, which have been clearly biased. As a former newspaper reporter, I have long since learned that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.
As a former newspaper reporter, I have long since learned that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.
At the same time, the role of whatever press we now
have is continuously changing. As a teenager, I had access to many magazines
such as Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report. Now, these magazines are
a shell of what they are and have drifted politically. As one political
comedian pointed out the only person that Newsweek has put more on its cover
than Sarah Palin is Jesus.
When I was in high school, we also had Life, Look
and The Saturday Evening Post. All gone though the Post has restarted as what
is basically a bi-monthly nostalgia magazine.
Yet, the need for a free press remains a backbone
of our way of life. While many still feel it was wrong, a free press uncovered
Watergate, as well as many political scandals from other eras.
The handling of the White House press corps has
been bungled badly. You don’t call CNN liars, especially when they are the most
neutral cable news enterprise. You don’t have your press secretary tell
“alternate truths” about the size of the inaugural crowds, especially in light
of the photographic evidence and DC Metro passenger data.
And finally, we need to ask ourselves if the
President the Electoral College has chosen is up to the job. He obviously has a
tremendous ego and is very quick to make judgments about things that don’t
please him. He is clearly not “acting presidential” and I wonder if this is a
good or bad thing. Harry Truman was known as one who also spoke his mind. But
he also guided us through the end of the Second World War and most of the
Korean Conflict.
Does the new President have the political
sophistication to deal with a worldwide economic system and our longest war
ever?
But most importantly, during much of my near-70
years, politics has been vicious. I can’t think of a single administration
since Eisenhower’s that has not been under a microscope by the press and
political opponents. Mr. Trump, it seems to me, must develop a thick skin, and
so does his press secretary. Ignoring those who disagree and simply stating his
policies and views must be the cornerstone of his administration. I don’t like
the man. But he is our President. Mr. Obama once noted that the job of the
President is to serve the American people, not just his supporters. I hope Mr.
Trump can rise above partisan politics. It’s about time someone does.